Iger to step down in 2015, Leave company in 2016

[devoy1701]

Yes, now that you mention it, I also had a Spirit whisper something like that in my ear.

I think his ideology has become so entrenched in TWDC and the corporate world in general that his successor will likely be quite similar.

Meg for CEO 2016!

:dazzle:

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Funny enough, Eisner didn't believe Disney needed or should participate in acquisitions and mergers. He thought the company was big enough and strong enough to be able to develop from within. Then again, he also completed one of the largest acquisitions in Disney history, but building a major network from the ground up might have been too big of an undertaking.

Also funny was that Eisner consider Iger to be a "problem" executive not long after the ABC acquisition...yet he chose him as a successor. Guess the guy was just full of contradictions!

People are very quick to jump on Iger as someone who didn't do good things for the company, but I believe that is shortsighted.

-Acquired Pixar

-Acquired Marvel (some think not a good idea, but it does help in the financial realm)

-Approved one of the largest, if not the largest periods of growth for parks and resorts. 2 new cruise ships, new resort in Hawaii, major expansions and renovations to parks, unheard of investments in technology that should completely change visits to parks and more.

I could go on, but I think I am making my point. I unfortunately believe that no matter who runs the company, that unless they don't bring back Horizons people won't be happy. We focus on such small things here, but don't like to focus on the big picture. There are billions and billions of dollars on the table in just parks and resorts right now (let alone the other divisions of the company), yet it just isn't good enough for people. Iger may have done some things I haven't loved thus far during his tenure, but I can't deny that he has really invested and taken a lot of chances to really build the company.

 

[DocMcHulk]

Any chance the massive "they're going to sell the parks" meeting a few months back was related to this? Maybe working on a plan for him to step down?

Just a thought.

 

[devoy1701]

Any chance the massive "they're going to sell the parks" meeting a few months back was related to this? Maybe working on a plan for him to step down?

Just a thought.

They wouldn't have needed to go to Orlando for that. That meeting probably did focus on the possibility of selling the parks and also the deal that was being worked with Cameron.

 

[JustInTime]

Could this have something to do with the potiential sale of Dinsey Parks? Perhaps the company didn't like that idea and this was forced? Or the other way around? Perhaps iger was holding back on a sale and they forced him to leave? Very odd and funny timing. Rumors FLY over the summer, CEO gone...hmmm.

 

[wdwfan4ver]

Meg for CEO 2016!

:dazzle:

I don't see that happening because she would be CEO for the short term due to age. Meg is going to be 63 years old in 2016.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Could this have something to do with the potiential sale of Dinsey Parks? Perhaps the company didn't like that idea and this was forced? Or the other way around? Perhaps iger was holding back on a sale and they forced him to leave? Very odd and funny timing. Rumors FLY over the summer, CEO gone...hmmm.

The board was likely there, because they were checking out information on the Avatar expansion. They were all spotted in Animal Kingdom during that visit. I have no idea where the sale rumor keeps popping up since there has been nothing outward about something like that happening. Iger is not being forced out. Preparing for something 5 years in advance actually shows the opposite. Seems he is leaving on his terms and setting up well in advance for who is successor will be. Eisner was forced out, and you can see how fast that process went. Also, a sale would go through the board and shareholders. Iger would have just been a council on it and another board voice when it came to making that decision. The CEO can't just decide one day that he wants to sell off a division and go ahead with it.

 

[njDizFan]

Could this have something to do with the potiential sale of Dinsey Parks? Perhaps the company didn't like that idea and this was forced? Or the other way around? Perhaps iger was holding back on a sale and they forced him to leave? Very odd and funny timing. Rumors FLY over the summer, CEO gone...hmmm.

also his contract was extended from 2013 to 2015, so this in no way shows any signs of a "force out".

Although on a completely different tangent some rumors have swirled that the Av-land construction is going to be stalled long enough to pass the buck to the new owners of P&R.

***Don't shoot the messenger***

 

[WDW1974]

According to our Spirited friend, Iger has quite a bit of support up in NY and has aspirations of Mayor of NYC of Governor of NY.

Yes. I believe I have been saying that ...

I think that this will end up being good news for TWDC. He has never shown a hint of creativity within himself and that is what a company like Disney needs at the forefront. Though I am very curious on who will be groomed for successor. I can't see someone like Iger picking someone unlike him to follow in his footsteps.

I don't know whether it will be good news, but I do know it won't be bad news. Clearly, Disney is grooming Staggs to be the next guy ... even the way this is being announced gives credence to that.

Considering I feel Disney has been in a great creative decline (and has made some very BRAND damaging decisions over the last dozen years), I'd almost prefer someone from the outside. Not likely to happen, though!

 

[devoy1701]

I don't see that happening because she would be CEO for the short term due to age. Meg is going to be 63 years old in 2016.

63 isn't that old for CEO actually. Apparently the average age 56 but about 25% of CEOs in the US are over 60.

And Meg as CEO was just a joke anyway. But someone made a good point that if Staggs was to be put into a more senior position that would put Crofton in line for the EVP (or whatever title they use internall) of Parks and Resorts would could be very unfortunate.

 

[WDW1974]

Iger's resignation would coincide with Disneyland's 60th! I wonder what would happen. With Roy E. Disney's passing, I hope it's someone who won't ruin Disney stock...

Disney's stock hasn't exactly been soaring over the past decade.

And even though this is a park-centric (and mostly WDW-centric) forum, DL's 60th has nothing to do with any decisions made ... P&R just is a part of a HUGE media company. That's it.

Now, is Iger gonna hang on to open Shanghai DL (and appear to open the Chinese mainland to TWDC) as Eisner hung on to take the first step with HKDL? That's possible ...

 

[Thrill]

People are very quick to jump on Iger as someone who didn't do good things for the company, but I believe that is shortsighted.

-Acquired Pixar

-Acquired Marvel (some think not a good idea, but it does help in the financial realm)

-Approved one of the largest, if not the largest periods of growth for parks and resorts. 2 new cruise ships, new resort in Hawaii, major expansions and renovations to parks, unheard of investments in technology that should completely change visits to parks and more.

I could go on, but I think I am making my point. I unfortunately believe that no matter who runs the company, that unless they don't bring back Horizons people won't be happy. We focus on such small things here, but don't like to focus on the big picture. There are billions and billions of dollars on the table in just parks and resorts right now (let alone the other divisions of the company), yet it just isn't good enough for people. Iger may have done some things I haven't loved thus far during his tenure, but I can't deny that he has really invested and taken a lot of chances to really build the company.

You can also look at his purchases at Disney Interactive. Such amazing acquisitions as Tapulous and Playdom, one known for re-skinning the same game and selling it on iPhones and the other not really known, but they do something with Facebook games.

Can't get much better than pouring money into something that is probably a bubble. Especially when it completely contradicts the core value of the Disney company, which is quality.

I also look at this company and see spending more instead of spending smart. Fantasyland Expansion is reported to cost $300 million or more. A stark comparison to Universal's Wizarding World of Harry Potter, which was reported to be a little under $200 million. Tell me, should FLE cost 50% more than WWoHP, or even greater than that? I think it is a fair amount more expensive, but not quite that much. Then you have them dropping $300 million or more on one single attraction in Carsland. You see the same reckless spending a bit in the studio division.

How about the new philosophy of "let the story come to the technology" that seems to be coming to parks? Haunted Mansion's new queue is a prime example of technology for the sake of technology. The technology is supposed to come to the story. Omnimovers weren't used for Haunted Mansion because they were cutting edge, they were used because they were the best mechanic to show the scenes of the ride.

And the final issue I have with Iger is Disney Channel. I look at it and I want to cry. Like the social media games, this counteracts what Disney stands for, and that's high quality.

Iger's done some good things, and in that sense, maybe he does get more crap than he deserves. But there are a lot of overlooked issues in the company that get little to no attention.

Disney's stock hasn't exactly been soaring over the past decade.

And even though this is a park-centric (and mostly WDW-centric) forum, DL's 60th has nothing to do with any decisions made ... P&R just is a part of a HUGE media company. That's it.

Now, is Iger gonna hang on to open Shanghai DL (and appear to open the Chinese mainland to TWDC) as Eisner hung on to take the first step with HKDL? That's possible ...

Up until late July, it was soaring. It broke $40. And then it collapsed, hovering between the $29 and $32 in recent weeks. The threat of a double dip recession is part of the issue, but I think the company was overvalued to begin with.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

You can also look at his purchases at Disney Interactive. Such amazing acquisitions as Tapulous and Playdom, one known for re-skinning the same game and selling it on iPhones and the other not really known, but they do something with Facebook games.

Can't get much better than pouring money into something that is probably a bubble. Especially when it completely contradicts the core value of the Disney company, which is quality.

I also look at this company and see spending more instead of spending smart. Fantasyland Expansion is reported to cost $300 million or more. A stark comparison to Universal's Wizarding World of Harry Potter, which was reported to be a little under $200 million. Tell me, should FLE cost 50% more than WWoHP, or even greater than that? I think it is a fair amount more expensive, but not quite that much. Then you have them dropping $300 million or more on one single attraction in Carsland. You see the same reckless spending a bit in the studio division.

How about the new philosophy of "let the story come to the technology" that seems to be coming to parks? Haunted Mansion's new queue is a prime example of technology for the sake of technology. The technology is supposed to come to the story. Omnimovers weren't used for Haunted Mansion because they were cutting edge, they were used because they were the best mechanic to show the scenes of the ride.

And the final issue I have with Iger is Disney Channel. I look at it and I want to cry. Like the social media games, this counteracts what Disney stands for, and that's high quality.

Iger's done some good things, and in that sense, maybe he does get more crap than he deserves. But there are a lot of overlooked issues in the company that get little to no attention.



Up until late July, it was soaring. It broke $40. And then it collapsed, hovering between the $29 and $32 in recent weeks. The threat of a double dip recession is part of the issue, but I think the company was overvalued to begin with.

Part of the blame for the inflated prices on the creatives that everyone loves...Imagineering. They have gotten to the point where they are charging a fortune for their developments. If Disney had done Potter it would have cost twice as much.

 

[JustInTime]

The board was likely there, because they were checking out information on the Avatar expansion. They were all spotted in Animal Kingdom during that visit. I have no idea where the sale rumor keeps popping up since there has been nothing outward about something like that happening. Iger is not being forced out. Preparing for something 5 years in advance actually shows the opposite. Seems he is leaving on his terms and setting up well in advance for who is successor will be. Eisner was forced out, and you can see how fast that process went. Also, a sale would go through the board and shareholders. Iger would have just been a council on it and another board voice when it came to making that decision. The CEO can't just decide one day that he wants to sell off a division and go ahead with it.

Great points. I know nothing about this stuff but the timing seemed so odd.

 

[COProgressFan]

Anyone else think it's interesting that Iger will serve as chairman and CEO? During Roy's "Save Disney" campaign, one of the issues was regarding corporate governance, and that the CEO and chairman of the board should not be the same person as this could create a conflict of interest.

The board ultimately agreed (under pressure) and Eisner was removed from his chairman position. But apparently now 7 years later they don't think this is an issue any more.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

Anyone else think it's interesting that Iger will serve as chairman and CEO? During Roy's "Save Disney" campaign, one of the issues was regarding corporate governance, and that the CEO and chairman of the board should not be the same person as this could create a conflict of interest.

The board ultimately agreed (under pressure) and Eisner was removed from his chairman position. But apparently now 7 years later they don't think this is an issue any more.

Doesn't look Iger will become chairman until he steps down as CEO. Although, I must say that Disney is an anomaly when it comes to that situation. In most large organizations the CEO serves as Chairman of the Board as well.

 

[WDW1974]

People are very quick to jump on Iger as someone who didn't do good things for the company, but I believe that is shortsighted.

I believe he has been a competent CEO at best. But I also believe you can't fully judge his tenure until it's over. ... You can only judge what has happened and why.

-Acquired Pixar

This was a no-brainer. ANY FANBOI who doesn't have an unnatural hate for the Emeryville crew because they put out far better films than Disney would have done the same. Yes, it was a GREAT move. It also was an obvious one.

-Acquired Marvel (some think not a good idea, but it does help in the financial realm)

I think it was a $4-billion plus and counting mistake. They can't use the characters everyone has at least heard of in most of their parks, yet their biggest competitor can and does. They don't control movie rights to some of the most valuable properties. And the merchandise isn't flying off the shelves (local outlet store is always loaded with Marvel crap). And even the films are going to reach a point of diminishing returns. How many comic book films are too many?

-Approved one of the largest, if not the largest periods of growth for parks and resorts. 2 new cruise ships, new resort in Hawaii, major expansions and renovations to parks, unheard of investments in technology that should completely change visits to parks and more.

The growth, while impressive, is also overstated. In the late 70s/early 80s when Disney was a TINY company, it created EPCOT Center, built TDL, rebuilt DL's Fantasyland (an entire job, not the piecemeal MK project of today), opened BTMRR on two coasts while keeping the quality at a very high level.

In the late 80s/early 90s, Disney created Euro Disney, added Disney-MGM, Typhoon Lagoon, Pleasure Island and multiple resorts at WDW, bought the DLH, built Splash Mountain in Anaheim and added major attractions to EPCOT, MK and TDL. ... Oh, all the while planning DAK and Disney's America too.

So, no, I don't for a second buy the hype and PR about today's growth.

I could go on, but I think I am making my point. I unfortunately believe that no matter who runs the company, that unless they don't bring back Horizons people won't be happy. We focus on such small things here, but don't like to focus on the big picture.

This point I 100% agree with. That is a huge problem with fans. They only focus on whatever their faves are. They don't think about WDW as a small part of TWDC (and things like specific attractions are barely a blip on the radar).

There are billions and billions of dollars on the table in just parks and resorts right now (let alone the other divisions of the company), yet it just isn't good enough for people. Iger may have done some things I haven't loved thus far during his tenure, but I can't deny that he has really invested and taken a lot of chances to really build the company.

I would disagree about taking chances beyond Marvel and his dealings with China. And the latter is a 'chance' you have to take in his shoes. That market is the largest untapped one on the planet and is growing a middle class as we kill ours. He has to go there. .... But I don't see much of what he has done as taking chances. I see him as playing it safe and that is deadly to a creative company.

 

[Pioneer Hall]

I believe he has been a competent CEO at best. But I also believe you can't fully judge his tenure until it's over. ... You can only judge what has happened and why.



This was a no-brainer. ANY FANBOI who doesn't have an unnatural hate for the Emeryville crew because they put out far better films than Disney would have done the same. Yes, it was a GREAT move. It also was an obvious one.





I think it was a $4-billion plus and counting mistake. They can't use the characters everyone has at least heard of in most of their parks, yet their biggest competitor can and does. They don't control movie rights to some of the most valuable properties. And the merchandise isn't flying off the shelves (local outlet store is always loaded with Marvel crap). And even the films are going to reach a point of diminishing returns. How many comic book films are too many?





The growth, while impressive, is also overstated. In the late 70s/early 80s when Disney was a TINY company, it created EPCOT Center, built TDL, rebuilt DL's Fantasyland (an entire job, not the piecemeal MK project of today), opened BTMRR on two coasts while keeping the quality at a very high level.

In the late 80s/early 90s, Disney created Euro Disney, added Disney-MGM, Typhoon Lagoon, Pleasure Island and multiple resorts at WDW, bought the DLH, built Splash Mountain in Anaheim and added major attractions to EPCOT, MK and TDL. ... Oh, all the while planning DAK and Disney's America too.

So, no, I don't for a second buy the hype and PR about today's growth.





This point I 100% agree with. That is a huge problem with fans. They only focus on whatever their faves are. They don't think about WDW as a small part of TWDC (and things like specific attractions are barely a blip on the radar).




I would disagree about taking chances beyond Marvel and his dealings with China. And the latter is a 'chance' you have to take in his shoes. That market is the largest untapped one on the planet and is growing a middle class as we kill ours. He has to go there. .... But I don't see much of what he has done as taking chances. I see him as playing it safe and that is deadly to a creative company.

There is no question that you and I have disagreed on a number of things in the past. To a point I agree and disagree with Marvel. It was a risky acquisition, and for now doesn't seem like it is returning well. I am hoping that there are plans for that in the future since they will have it until they decide otherwise. For now I am not thrilled, but let's see what happens later on.

I think the difference between all the developments you mentioned are that they occurred over a period of 15-20 years. Yes, the growth was incredible, but Iger has a lot going on right now. His tenure won't be the 20 years that Iger was where he had to rebuild the company. I don't think you can really deny the amount of money that is on the table...it's billions of dollars in many different areas. I don't think opening new resorts in Hawaii, Shanghai, expanding your cruise line, investing in technology are exactly safe moves. I think they are moves that are different, but now that Disney is a relatively safe company they don't have the risk that they might have once had.

I'm definitely not the guy's biggest fan, but I don't think he has run the company into the ground like a lot of people like to say he has. I think that we somewhat agree on that though.

 

[WDW1974]

The board was likely there, because they were checking out information on the Avatar expansion.

No, they weren't. The BoD doesn't need to visit a theme park to check expansion possibilities. They were there to agree on a framework to sell all/part of P&R and showcase the property to possible investors/buyers, which they did. Fanbois can stick their fingers in their ears and say they can't hear the word, but that's it.

They were all spotted in Animal Kingdom during that visit.

Really?!??! Where and when? Where's one person saying they saw them? Where's the photos? Where's the post on The Disney Parks Blog? Steve Jobs was dying, but took the Wild Africa Trek in late June with the board for teambuilding? Sure.

I have no idea where the sale rumor keeps popping up since there has been nothing outward about something like that happening.

Disney has been talking to people in investment circles as far back as 2007 (possibly earlier) about either taking on a partner in P&R or selling all/part of the unit and taking licensing fees because the BoD doesn't like the exposure Disney faces in that business unit. It has been kept quiet, but it isn't a national security secret.

Iger is not being forced out. Preparing for something 5 years in advance actually shows the opposite. Seems he is leaving on his terms and setting up well in advance for who is successor will be.

I would agree he isn't being forced out. But sometimes you can be given five years notice (see Jay Leno).:ROFLOL:

Eisner was forced out, and you can see how fast that process went. Also, a sale would go through the board and shareholders. Iger would have just been a council on it and another board voice when it came to making that decision. The CEO can't just decide one day that he wants to sell off a division and go ahead with it.

Eisner didn't want to leave. Iger already has post-Disney plans. And you are correct, selling all/part of a division is a BoD decision. But the BoD will usually follow the CEO's recommendations.

 

[devoy1701]

There is no question that you and I have disagreed on a number of things in the past. To a point I agree and disagree with Marvel. It was a risky acquisition, and for now doesn't seem like it is returning well. I am hoping that there are plans for that in the future since they will have it until they decide otherwise. For now I am not thrilled, but let's see what happens later on.

I think the difference between all the developments you mentioned are that they occurred over a period of 15-20 years. Yes, the growth was incredible, but Iger has a lot going on right now. His tenure won't be the 20 years that Iger was where he had to rebuild the company. I don't think you can really deny the amount of money that is on the table...it's billions of dollars in many different areas. I don't think opening new resorts in Hawaii, Shanghai, expanding your cruise line, investing in technology are exactly safe moves. I think they are moves that are different, but now that Disney is a relatively safe company they don't have the risk that they might have once had.

I'm definitely not the guy's biggest fan, but I don't think he has run the company into the ground like a lot of people like to say he has. I think that we somewhat agree on that though.

I don't know if anyone is saying that Iger has run the company into the ground. Many people continue to have a "wait and see" approach concerning Iger and his decisions...though now that we know he's out in 2016, I'm not sure how much longer people plan to wait and see how his decisions have panned out.

The guy has never impressed me. He's a business man and has ran the company strictly coming from that background. He has never shown any creative notions, nor has he seemed to stand behind any big creative ambitions the company has made during his tenure (wait...has the company made any big creative moves during his tenure?). In fact it seems to me like he has always distanced himself from the creative side of the business in favor of letting the divison heads drive. And because of this I believe the company has suffered. They're no longer the ones at the industry forefront (any of the industries that they are involved in) and are no longer the ones everyone else is looking to when coming up with the next big thing in entertainment. Disney needs one person at the top to funnel it's creativeness and innovation through....a face of the company that once again becomes a household name.